This book fucking sucks. Let me summarize lolita for you:

Which part of my post didn't you understand? I don't care if it's on purpose, the prose is still pretentious trying-hard-to-be-poetic garbage.

Hows life bud? You sound upset

Which part of his post didn't you understand? The prose being 'pretentious trying-hard-to-be-poetic garbage' as you put it (even though its good) is LITERALLY the point

>I think I am going to pick it back up so I can finish it because muh being well read
lmao dont read things for being 'well read' you fucking psudeo

just read a sparknotes summary pmsl

If you didn't like it, that's your taste bud and I respect that. But you simply can't overlook the literary value this work has and it's not only because of Nabokov's prose.

If I smear shit on a piece of paper and write a narrative framework around it, it's still shit smeared on paper.

so?

I think you should be able to figure this out on your own.

>can't produce any coherent objective critique
>resorts to maximum edgy illogical "analogies"
How is high-school treating you, brainlet?

if theres a good enough narrative framework, shit smeared on paper could still feasibly be good art.

if you are able to write a narrative framework compelling enough to make people read about smeared shit then you're a good writter.

In the book Humbert was trying to make you sympathize with him. Despite committing such acts that would be rendered detestable, Humbert tries to get you to feel some sort of compassion towards him. He wasn't a man who manipulated a young girl, and sexually abused her due to an obsessive fetish. He was a man who had fallen in love with a young girl and did his best to make her happy.

Also noticed additionally within the story was that not only did he emphasize his feelings about the matter in a way that made you feel sorry for him and explained how he was not wrong in his doings, but he also seemingly fabricated stories to make the reader or "judge" feel quite understanding towards his urges such as when he claimed that Lolita was actually somewhat of a sexually curious girl who didn't mind sexual experience and had actually experimented before. We do not know if this is true or not. We cannot fully affirm anything within this book is wither truthful or some sort of fib since the whole entire text is from Humberts perspective.

monsters as the humans that they are?

If you don't like it and you're not going to change your mind about it then don't make a thread about it

The narrator is an insufferable prick who likes showing off his erudition and has perverse, illegal sexual desires.
Do you ever think of yourself as maybe being a little bit of an insufferable prick who likes showing off his erudition and has perverse, illegal sexual desires?
If so, then this book is for you.

if you read Lolita for the plot you are fucking retarded famalam

>He said Defending NABOKOV
It's okay for you to do this I just think it's funny considering how much of an asshole Nabokov was about important writers

I really fucking hated the french.

>He wasn't a man who manipulated a young girl, and sexually abused her due to an obsessive fetish. He was a man who had fallen in love with a young girl and did his best to make her happy.
lmao what lole trole

I read this book on the bus when i was 15 and got teased for it

Place what he said in the wider context of his post you utter brainlet

what a lawfag

Someone needs to fix this image

You are just mad because you can't get your hands on a loli gf. That's the real reason you hate the book. Humbert is everything you wanted to be and your failure makes you upset

>It means that much like my post, the book went over your brainlet.
Either Nabokov is spectacularly awful at conveying his thoughts, or you were in fact double-rused yourself, because *every* *single* damn normie who ever read that book only ever came away with one conclusion: "damn my nigga, being an underage fucktoy is hella cool, fuck me harder, daddy".

t. "Dirty" Dan " The man with the plan to get her in the van. Thick as a beer can. Widest girth in the land. I hate sand. You'll love getting slammed. Keep quite or be canned. I'll never be banned. Its for the kids, don't you understand? I can tell you're fan. I am a legend on Veeky Forums. Some like 'em only white, but I accept tan." "Rough rider. Large hardon collider. Hold her tighter, she's a fighter. I enjoy the biters. I like them lighter. Hymen diver. Its going to be an all-nighter. If you have a daughter, hide her." " Don't call me that." Schneider

>Hi, I'm a fucking psychopath. I like fucking little girls.
sounds perfectly sane to me

Thank you for your input, part of the jury

Because normies are usually really dumb, just like you sweetie

>You should agree with pedophilia, because it's acceptable in so many cultures and it's only bad because muh norms.
Wow you're dumb.

Nabokov wasn't writing for the elite literature club audience, boyo, he wrote for normies. So, again:

a) Either he's spectacularly horrible at actually communicating his thoughts clearly, or
b) The effect was intended, he wanted to make pedophilia glamorous among the normies and used the unreliable narrator trick to escape public scrutiny and controversy.

Did you read serious literature for the purpose of appearing well-read, interesting and intelligent, only to become frustrated when you realized that these books require a considerable amount of time and effort to enjoy?

Do you generally prefer plot over prose?

Do you hate characters who you disagree with, and love those who are a self-insert?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then Pseud Springs is the place for you!

Pseud Springs is a place where you can talk about books you don't know how to read with other like-minded people who are intelligent, nihilistic and have a wicked sense of humour. Check out our Subreddit, Facebook page and Instagram account today!

>Nabokov wrote for normies

This, but unironically.

My fave is Dan "The Junior High Insider" Schneider.

Is Nabokov's book Ada or Ardor good? I've heard it's better than Lolita.

I enjoyed it considerably less. Enjoyed it more as it progressed. I enjoyed Lolita much more, probably because I'm pedo

Nice

...

Read this stuff in the school, nothing special. Read the "Justine" by Marquis de Sade.